A. P. Deshpande, J. - (1.)Criminal Application no. 2875 of 2007 is filed by one dadasaheb Shivram Kanchan; Cri. Appln. No. 3025 of 2007 is filed by Santosh dadasaheb Kanchan; and Cri. Appln. No. 3025 of 2007 is filed by Ratna Dadasaheb kanchan. Dadasaheb and Ratna are the parents of Santosh. Crime No. 138 of 2007 came to be registered against the present applicants who are accused, and who are facing prosecution for commission of offence under sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 read with section 34 of I. P. Code. The offence came to be registered on 24-4-2007. The applicants came to be arrested on the very day i. e. 24-4-2007 and since then till date they are in custody.
(2.)Few facts that are relevant for consideration of these applications are narrated hereinbelow. The deceased Shubhangi got married to Santosh on 13-12-2006. It is case of the prosecution that dowry was demanded by the applicants' family and also received the same from the parents of the deceased. It is further alleged that about ten lakh rupees were spent on the marriage by the father of the deceased. The demand for dowry on the part of the present applicants was not satisfied and so they were harassing the deceased. The deceased was mentally and physically harassed. The deceased had narrated the incidence of illtreatment and harassment to her mother and sister. On 23-4-2007 Shubhangi was asked to bring money from her father for purchase of scorpio car and washing machine. On the same day Shubhangi was expired of extensive burn injuries and before she was brought to Sasoon Hospital Pune, she succumbed to death. Shubhangi had suffered 97% burns. Post-mortem was performed at sasoon Hospital. The probable cause of death as opined by the Doctor is "shock due to burn injuries". However, no carbon particles were found in the respiratory system, despite 97% burns. As no Soot was discovered in the trachea and lungs of the deceased. The present intervener by name indira Mahila Adhar Kendra filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition no. 1834 of 2007 and prayed for further investigation at the hands of State CID, as the said NGO was not happy with the investigation at the hands of the local police. It was argued before this Court in the above referred writ petition by the NGO that though the case squarely falls under section 302 of I. P. Code, the local police registered the same under sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of I. P. Code. This Court being of the prima- facie view that ordinarily Soot would have been found somewhere in the trachea or respiratory track as she had 97% burns and no investigation was done in that respect. The Court recorded its dissatisfaction in the manner the investigation had then progressed. The Court thus, directed the State CID (Crime) to take over the investigation from the local police. It is thus clear that doubt was expressed as to how investigation was not made in relation to an offence under section 302 when no Soot was detected in trachea and respiratory track.
State CID took over the investigation from the local police and it proceeded to record statement of some of the witnesses. Besides recording statement of witnesses and supplementary statement, State CID also obtained a second medical opinion about the cause of death and more particularly about the reason for absence of Soot in the trachea and the respiratory track. Second medical opinion is obtained by the investigating officer from the department of forensic Medicine, Grant Medical College and Shri J. J. Hospital, Mumbai. The medical opinion is dated 21st February, 2008 and is signed by Associate Professor, lecturer and resident doctor. This medical opinion goes hand in hand with the opinion expressed by the doctors, who performed the post-mortem. It is categorically stated therein that on account of burn injuries and pain, if the respiratory process is suddenly stopped and the death occurs immediately, then it is possible that no carbon particle would be found in the respiratory system. A unanimous medical opinion thus, rules out the bum injury to be post-mortem injuries.

As stated hereinbefore the State CID has recorded statements of some of the witnesses, one of those is a crucial witness who i do not, at this stage, choose to name for the reasons that investigation is not complete. The witness has stated that he along with some other persons had been to shivkrupa Mangal Karyalaya at about 4 p. m. in regard to sale/ purchase of 7 acres of land and the witness has stated that for about one hour Dada Kanchan, his wife and their son Santosh had a discussion. The said statement goes to corroborate the statement of the accused. There is no material available and brought to my notice at this stage which goes to advance the case of investigation for establishing the offence under section 302 of I. P. Code. The State CID after taking over the investigation has collected the material but most of it goes to substantiate the charge under section 498-A, 304-B, 306 read with section 34 if i. P. Code. The evidence and the material which is available till date is supporting the prosecution so far as above referred offences are concerned and not the offence under section 302 of I. P. Code.

(3.)In this view of the matter, it required to be examined as to whether the applicants could be released on bail and if they are to be released, on what conditions. The applicants are in custody for last about ten months. The investigation is still in progress. It would be inappropriate to deny bail to the applicants, in view of the circumstances that have come on record. Having regard to totality of the facts and circumstances, i think it just and proper to release the applicants on bail.
The learned APP has submitted that as investigation is not over, the applicants should not be permitted to enter the boundaries of village Urali Kanchan till filing of the charge-sheet. He further submits that so far as Santosh and Dadasaheb are concerned, they be directed to attend the office of State CID Pune on every Friday in between 3 to 5 p. m. In regard to applicant ratna Dadasaheb Kanchan, it is fairly submitted by the learned APP on instructions from investigating officer that she needs to present herself as and when directed by the state CID. In the result, I direct that the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50 thousand each with one solvent surety each in the like amount. The applicant dadasaheb Shivram Kanchan in Cri. Application no. 2875 of 2007, and the applicant Santosh Dadasaheb Kanchan in Cri. Application No. 3025 of 2007 shall attend the office of State CID Pune in between 3 to 5 p. m. on every Friday till the charge-sheet is filed, whereas the applicant Ratna dadasaheb Kanchan in Cri. Application No. 3574 of 2007 shall attend the office of the investigating officer of State CID Pune as and when directed.